posted
What did this notorious scourage of Rome really look like? In movies and pop culture, he is usually portrayed as European-looking (not surprising). For example:
The problem is that the Huns were from northern Asia, not far from Mongolia. I would think Attila looked more like this (except without gray skin or yellow eyes):
In other words, sort of like a Central/East Asian. Is there a European affinity in Huns that I don't know of, or is the popular image of a "white" Attila another product of nonsensical Eurocentrism?
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with Hollywood when it comes to historical movies, is that it is too easy for them to ignore the many common sense aspects of culture and cast someone totally out of range of what the said group of person would likely have looked like. They do this for "marketing" reasons, in other words...they cast a white person so white people can feel more connected to the character being portrayed. A lot of it is simple eurocentrism though. Even though Apocalypto was "blah," one of the reasons there was so much early anticipation is because it was actually a historical movie about a civilization OUTSIDE of Europe and not being whitewashed...who woulda thunkin?
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: In other words, sort of like a Central/East Asian. Is there a European affinity in Huns that I don't know of, or is the popular image of a "white" Attila another product of nonsensical Eurocentrism?
Since the Huns were a nomadic people consisting of various Eurasian clans it would be rather difficult to compose a uniform image of the Hunnic warrior. However, the Greek historian Priscus records Atilla as "mongoloid" in appearance. I wouldn't blame the depiction of Attilla in the made for TV movie as a Eurocentric conspiracy but merely formulaic Hollywood casting
Would the average person rather watch Gerard Butler duking it out with the Romans
or some guy that looks like this... Posts: 32 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: The problem with Hollywood when it comes to historical movies, is that it is too easy for them to ignore the many common sense aspects of culture and cast someone totally out of range of what the said group of person would likely have looked like. They do this for "marketing" reasons, in other words...they cast a white person so white people can feel more connected to the character being portrayed. A lot of it is simple eurocentrism though. Even though Apocalypto was "blah," one of the reasons there was so much early anticipation is because it was actually a historical movie about a civilization OUTSIDE of Europe and not being whitewashed...who woulda thunkin?
Yeah but still, look at how Mayan history and civilization were distorted and denigrated in that film.
Getting back to the topic. The identity of the Huns is alot more complex than it seems. It is a given that they originated in Asia, but there is still somewhat a conjecture as to what specific ethnicity. The Huns that invaded Europe were an amalgam of Eurasian peoples from Uralic speaking to Indo-European speaking, to Altaic speaking peoples. To make things difficult, long after the fall of the Hunnic empire, many Eurasian nomads adopted the name 'Hun' just for the prestige. Perhaps the best clues can be gained from what historians have described about Atilla himself. According to the Greek historian Priscus who met Atilla in real life, he was:
"short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with gray; and he had a flat nose and a swarthy complexion, showing the evidences of his origin."
This is further supported by skeletal and cranial remains from royal graves of the Hunnic capital in modern-day Hungary which show "mogoloid" affinities. Such evidence does strongly favor the theory that the Huns were or descended from a people of the Eastern Steppes the Chinese called Hsiung-nu or Xiong-nu. We still don't know what language they spoke. Many scholars think they were Altaic speakers, specifically early Turkic speakers. Still others say they may have even been Uralic speaking people.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Would the average person rather watch Gerard Butler duking it out with the Romans
or some guy that looks like this...
Would depend on whom you are asking; for instance, try asking people who could see themselves in the latter 'some guy that looks like this', and see. That's where the issue lies; you, as a Eurocentric individual, would of course opt for a European-looking person. Don't just assume that everyone else, sans people of recent European descent, share your enthusiasm for casting Europeans as non-Europeans.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AlexandertheConqueror: Would the average person rather watch Gerard Butler duking it out with the Romans
or some guy that looks like this...
LOL There are plenty of Asian actors that don't look as goofy. In fact I've seen quite a few movies depicting Asian brutish stong-men types.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Perhaps not as goofy as 1940s & 50s American caricatures of "buck-toothed" Chinese and Japanese figures.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure there are some Eurasian actors that could fill the role. I was of course talking within the context of "Hollywood" which is a biased institution to begin with. An accurate depiction of the Huns would be awesome but it would not make money. I apologize if I offended any posters who are descendants of the European-Asiatic nomads known as the Huns.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure there are some Eurasian actors that could fill the role. I was of course talking within the context of "Hollywood" which is a biased institution to begin with.
Most of us already recognize that.
quote:Originally posted by AlexandertheConqueror:
An accurate depiction of the Huns would be awesome but it would not make money.
...presumably because people of European descent will be turned off. That's precisely what has been communicated herein, the idea of marketing towards Europeans and people of recent European descent. However, Hollywood is also aware of markets beyond the European and/or Eurocentric world, which they aren't foolish enough to underestimate. In fact, Hollywood is one of the top foreign exchange earners in America. I believe there is a lot more to it than just marketing issues; I believe that there is a Eurocentered dogmatic component to it. Remember, social conditioning as an instrument of psychological warfare, doesn't necessarily have to stay home.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't Hungarians claim to be descendants of the Huns, i think even the Finnish people do that.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I don't know about the Fins, but definitely the Hungarians since their very nation was where Atilla set up his kingdom. Whether they actually have ancestry from the Huns is a different answer altogether. The Hungarian people whose actual name is Magyars descend from an Uralic speaking nomadic people. I have little doubt that these people were connected in some way to the Huns as they shared the same nomadic pastures.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WOw, the Huns were Asians too? "Mongoloids" traveled quite a way from their homeland! and yet they werent civilizers but nomadic barbarians who destroyed the natural order!
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I am irritated with the term "mongoloid" as a description of eastern asian phenotype, and I'm sure many non-Mongolian Asians are. The fact that they were nomads or "barbarians" (which is itself a disparaging term) had nothing to do with their 'racial' or phenotypic makeup no more than their how advanced and civilized their Chinese enemies were.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When new forum member Alexander says "average person" he means white person.
The reason Hollywood white casts its history based movies is that white people won't pay to watch a movie unless white people are the leading stars.
They view a movie as a black (or name your ethny) movie not just a movie if it ain't about them or feature them prominently in the lead (Last King of Scotland).
Unfortunately other ethnies follow the white's lead and crow rhetoric like "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand."
And, yes, "formulaic Hollywood casting" is without a doubt Eurocentricity. What the hell else is it. It makes Europeans the center of everything and distorts the authentic image of history of everyone who views a mis-casted based-on-history movie, leaving white people subliminally but deeply embedded on the brain as the only ones who really count in history or whose history really counts.
quote:Originally posted by AlexandertheConqueror:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: In other words, sort of like a Central/East Asian. Is there a European affinity in Huns that I don't know of, or is the popular image of a "white" Attila another product of nonsensical Eurocentrism?
Since the Huns were a nomadic people consisting of various Eurasian clans it would be rather difficult to compose a uniform image of the Hunnic warrior. However, the Greek historian Priscus records Atilla as "mongoloid" in appearance. I wouldn't blame the depiction of Attilla in the made for TV movie as a Eurocentric conspiracy but merely formulaic Hollywood casting
Would the average person rather watch Gerard Butler [a non-Asian miscegenated white man playing] duking it out with the Romans
or some [yellow] guy that looks like this [an Asian of phenotype most likely approaching that of the Huns]...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The impress of Asian peoples in Europe plays out in their myths and epics.
Norse mythology has its Vanir inhabiting the mythical Nordheim before the Aesir do. Does this reflect Finno-Ugric vs Scandinavian realities of that region's early history?
Atli (the remembrance of Atilla) is an important legendary character appearing in the Volsunga Saga and as Etzel in the Germans' Nibelungenlied.
Yet and still we don't call those parts of east Europe and north Europe by the moniker Yellow Europe.
Of all the continents only Africa gets the heavy colour impression Black Africa as if the majority of its population is something other than black.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Don't Hungarians claim to be descendants of the Huns, i think even the Finnish people do that.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I am irritated with the term "mongoloid" as a description of eastern asian phenotype, and I'm sure many non-Mongolian Asians are. The fact that they were nomads or "barbarians" (which is itself a disparaging term) had nothing to do with their 'racial' or phenotypic makeup no more than their how advanced and civilized their Chinese enemies were.
I wasnt trying to be racist dawg, just making an observation .
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I know that! I wasn't mad at you or anything, I just think the term is silly. "Mongoloid" is of course derived from Mongol, and many Asians resent being called Mongolians.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: When new forum member Alexander says "average person" he means white person.
The reason Hollywood white casts its history based movies is that white people won't pay to watch a movie unless white people are the leading stars.
They view a movie as a black (or name your ethny) movie not just a movie if it ain't about them or feature them prominently in the lead (Last King of Scotland).
Unfortunately other ethnies follow the white's lead and crow rhetoric like "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand."
And, yes, "formulaic Hollywood casting" is without a doubt Eurocentricity. What the hell else is it. It makes Europeans the center of everything and distorts the authentic image of history of everyone who views a mis-casted based-on-history movie, leaving white people subliminally but deeply embedded on the brain as the only ones who really count in history or whose history really counts.
quote:Originally posted by AlexandertheConqueror: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: In other words, sort of like a Central/East Asian. Is there a European affinity in Huns that I don't know of, or is the popular image of a "white" Attila another product of nonsensical Eurocentrism?
Since the Huns were a nomadic people consisting of various Eurasian clans it would be rather difficult to compose a uniform image of the Hunnic warrior. However, the Greek historian Priscus records Atilla as "mongoloid" in appearance. I wouldn't blame the depiction of Attilla in the made for TV movie as a Eurocentric conspiracy but merely formulaic Hollywood casting
You couldn't be more right, Takruri!
quote:Originally posted by Macawiis_Bile_Nigiish: Ken Watanabe would make a great Attila IMO
or G Khan
^ Yeah you are right. I almost forgot about Ken Watanabe. Of course the guy is Japanese, and historically the Mongols and Japanese were enemies, but it would look a heck of alot more accurate that person of European descent!
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The impress of Asian peoples in Europe plays out in their myths and epics.
Norse mythology has its Vanir inhabiting the mythical Nordheim before the Aesir do. Does this reflect Finno-Ugric vs Scandinavian realities of that region's early history?
Yes, I agree that the Vanir and in fact many elements of Scandinavian culture not just religion, were all due to Finno-Ugric speaking people. But such people are indigenous Europeans, in fact indigenous to the Scandinavian region so I don't think they were Asians.
quote:Atli (the remembrance of Atilla) is an important legendary character appearing in the Volsunga Saga and as Etzel in the Germans' Nibelungenlied.
Yes, some scholars think that the character of Atli may be based on Atilla or Atilla himself.
quote:Yet and still we don't call those parts of east Europe and north Europe by the moniker Yellow Europe.
Indeed, especially considering that even after the Hunnic invasions, Europe was invaded again in the 13th century by the Golden Horde of Genghis Kahn which consisted of not only Turks but Mongols themselves.
quote:Of all the continents only Africa gets the heavy colour impression Black Africa as if the majority of its population is something other than black.
I totally agree. This is funny considering that genetics shows Europe to be one-third African in ancestry with the other two-thirds Eurasian. Now, among their Eurasian ancestry, what percentage of it is indigenous to Europe and what percentage is of east Eurasian/Asian origin introduced through the various invasions from the east?? Yet Europe is not labelled as 'white' because it is automatically assumed to be.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well littoral North Africans are indigenous to Africa, aren't they, yet they aren't Black African nor do we commonly hear of White Africa and White Africans the way we do Black Africa(ns).
There's a reason for that, for keeping the mind occupied with color when it comes to the majority Africans, their regions and their diaspora, while leaving color out of the equation for every other continent and people on earth.
But more on topic, I take it you suppose Uralic isn't Asian.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
The impress of Asian peoples in Europe plays out in their myths and epics.
Norse mythology has its Vanir inhabiting the mythical Nordheim before the Aesir do. Does this reflect Finno-Ugric vs Scandinavian realities of that region's early history?
Yes, I agree that the Vanir and in fact many elements of Scandinavian culture not just religion, were all due to Finno-Ugric speaking people. But such people are indigenous Europeans, in fact indigenous to the Scandinavian region so I don't think they were Asians.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Well littoral North Africans are indigenous to Africa, aren't they, yet they aren't Black African nor do we commonly hear of White Africa and White Africans the way we do Black Africa(ns).
There's a reason for that, for keeping the mind occupied with color when it comes to the majority Africans, their regions and their diaspora, while leaving color out of the equation for every other continent and people on earth.
Yes, I am quite aware of that.
quote:But more on topic, I take it you suppose Uralic isn't Asian.
Well here are three things:
First, the Uralic mountain range itself is used as the very border to seperate Europe from the rest of Asia, geopolitically speaking of course. As a border region, its classification is often ambiguous. It is considered European and Asian at the same time.
Second, linguistically the origins of the Uralic phylum are still being debated. Most think it orginated in the Ural areas because linguistic diversity points to that area, hence the name of the phylum. There is evidence though that Uralic were spoken throughout Scandinavia as far west as Norway (and still are by small pockets of Saami people). There is even evidence to suggest there might even be a substratum of Uralic or languages related to it in Germanic languages.
Lastly, there are populations in the Urals whose physical appearance seems ambiguous. They are 'white' people, but they possess many features associated with so-called "mongoloids" or east Asians. At first this was attributed to the presence of east-Asian types who still live in areas of the Urals, but genetics suggests this is not so especially with the Saami who also have such features but are indigenous to Scandinavia. The east Asian types living in the Ural areas speak Uralic languages also, but many scholars now think they adopted the languages from the natives as well as certain cultural practices.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The NO haplogroup appeared ca. 35-40 kya in Central Asia. Haplogroup N probably originated in Mongolia and spread both east into Siberia and west, being the most common group found in Uralic peoples. Haplogroup O is found at its highest frequency in East Asia and Southeast Asia, with lower frequencies in the South Pacific, Central Asia, and South Asia.
----------------
Haplogroup N probably originated in Mongolia and spread both east into Siberia and west, being the most common group found in Uralic peoples.
-------------
Haplogroup N is a descendant haplogroup of Haplogroup NO, and is believed to have first appeared in Siberia, Mongolia, or China approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. It is believed to have been transported across Eurasia by large-scale human migrations of peoples who, according to some theories, were speakers of Uralic languages.
--------------
The subclades of Haplogroup N with their defining mutation, according to the 2006 ISOGG tree:
N (LLY22g, M231)
N*
N1 (M128) Found at a low frequency among Manchu, Sibe, Manchurian Evenks, Koreans, northern Han Chinese, Buyei, and some Turkic peoples of Central Asia
N2 (P43) Typical of Northern Samoyedic peoples; also found at low to moderate frequency among some other Uralic peoples, Turkic peoples, Mongolic peoples, Tungusic peoples, and Eskimos
N2*
N2a (P63)
N3 (Tat (M46)) Typical of the Sakha and Uralic peoples, with a moderate distribution throughout North Eurasia
N3*
N3a (M178)
N3a*
N3a1 (P21)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Haplogroups N and N3 are common among Finns, Saami, Siberians and other Uralic peoples. They are associated with the spread of the Finno-Ugric language family, and may have been present in northwestern Asia for 40,000 years. Some have speculated that Finno-Ugric speakers were once widespread in western Europe as well, but were pushed to the north and the east by the encroachment of Indo-European speakers or other ancestors of modern Europeans. Little is known about these haplogroups, but they are linked with the TAT-C marker, a mutation thought to confer on its carriers an enhanced resistance to the cold.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Thanks for the info. I am more familiar with tat-C and O than I am with N. I do not doubt Siberian migrations into the altai, but whether this corresponds with Uralic languages is a different matter. Again, Siberian peoples of so-called "mongoloid" stock are still found in the Urals and do speak old branches of the language. But last time I checked, there is still some debate among scholars as to whether Uralic originated in Siberia or Europe. I am familiar with studies supporting the former, but I have recently read ones that supported the latter.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recognize that in this like in all things scholarly views differ. I side with the genetic evidence in tandem with the linguistic evidence that the Uralic speakers Hg markers N and N3 went from Siberia to Europe and that the language probably did to. Else its hard to explain the least miscegenated Asian phenotyped Uralic speakers adopting a language born in Europe.
posted
^ Of course, much of the debate in Uralic origins is mired in socio-politics. For centuries Uralic speaking Europeans from the Magyars (Hungarians), to the Finns, to especially the Saami, have been oppressed and discriminated against by the other (always Indo-European speaking) European groups, and their status as Europeans has always been challenged.
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weren't the original inhabitants of all of Africa including the littoral all Black, per what I understand on this forum, so they would be considered Black in America if Americans were not so hypocritical, right? Are white South Africans whose ancestors have been there for generations African? I guess it depends on point of view. Are there Blacks still living in the littoral. Are all the ancestors of the non-Blacks in the littoral native to the region or are some of them Eurasians who came in and mixed with the indigenous (Black) Africans?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Well littoral North Africans are indigenous to Africa, aren't they, yet they aren't Black African nor do we commonly hear of White Africa and White Africans the way we do Black Africa(ns).
There's a reason for that, for keeping the mind occupied with color when it comes to the majority Africans, their regions and their diaspora, while leaving color out of the equation for every other continent and people on earth.
But more on topic, I take it you suppose Uralic isn't Asian.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
The impress of Asian peoples in Europe plays out in their myths and epics.
Norse mythology has its Vanir inhabiting the mythical Nordheim before the Aesir do. Does this reflect Finno-Ugric vs Scandinavian realities of that region's early history?
Yes, I agree that the Vanir and in fact many elements of Scandinavian culture not just religion, were all due to Finno-Ugric speaking people. But such people are indigenous Europeans, in fact indigenous to the Scandinavian region so I don't think they were Asians.
quote:The NO haplogroup appeared ca. 35-40 kya in Central Asia. Haplogroup N probably originated in Mongolia and spread both east into Siberia and west, being the most common group found in Uralic peoples. Haplogroup O is found at its highest frequency in East Asia and Southeast Asia, with lower frequencies in the South Pacific, Central Asia, and South Asia.
Were these carriers topically adapted?
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well littoral North Africans are indigenous to Africa, aren't they, yet they aren't Black African nor do we commonly hear of White Africa and White Africans the way we do Black Africa
Good point! The Huns could? be both European (Hungarian) Eurasian (steppes) and Finno-Ugric (as in Saami or similar groups) depending on their sphere of influence and their surrounding environment. A thing proliferates where its surroundings are beneficial to development. The external or outlier markers tend to be based on group isolation or natural barriers based on forces exerted upon the group!
I met up with some Polish muslims some years in Chicago (they studied in Moscow) and they all had a Central Asian features. in a similar vein, the former general Shalikasvili (US army general) has always referred to his origin as Polish when the surname is Georgian (Soviet Georgia)!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So true, hence their scholars heavily veer to the pan Europe interpretation of Uralic. Because, even though "oppressed", they are white/near white peoples after all is said and done.
The Magyar are some of the proudest people I know and Hungarians in general are real stand-up folk.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course, much of the debate in Uralic origins is mired in socio-politics. For centuries Uralic speaking Europeans from the Magyars (Hungarians), to the Finns, to especially the Saami, have been oppressed and discriminated against by the other (always Indo-European speaking) European groups, and their status as Europeans has always been challenged.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aw naw HELL naw! They are, and will ever remain, European colonizers/interlopers in Africa until they freely marry Africans and adapt African culture (cuisine, music, language, etc..
ANALOGY: A German Shepherd in Mexico will never be a Chihuahua. If a cat has kittens in an oven, are they bisquits?
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Are white South Africans whose ancestors have been there for generations African?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Made me remember the time I had the TV on and some documentary was airing. I was in another room and I heard this beautiful Mid-Eastern music, chanting, and singing. I rushed back into the living room to see who it was. Oy gevalt! It was very central/east Asian phenotyped people. I was momentarily mesmerized until I came back to my senses and the realization that all culture is learned not inbred.
The Silk Route was multi-directional and more than material items of trade traveled and expanded from entrepot to entrepot along that glorious sprawling "super-hiway's" entire length.
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: ... depending on their sphere of influence and their surrounding environment. A thing proliferates where its surroundings are beneficial to development. The external or outlier markers tend to be based on group isolation or natural barriers based on forces exerted upon the group!
I met up with some Polish muslims some years in Chicago (they studied in Moscow) and they all had a Central Asian features.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Aw naw HELL naw! They are, and will ever remain, European colonizers/interlopers in Africa until they freely marry Africans and adapt African culture (cuisine, music, language, etc..
ANALOGY: A German Shepherd in Mexico will never be a Chihuahua. If a cat has kittens in an oven, are they bisquits?
LOL Nice analogy!
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I feel the same way. But then white Americans would not be Americans would they, because they colonized the native peoples. But what about the peoples of the littoral?
By the way, alTrakuri, is your icon a painting of Juan de Pareja?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Aw naw HELL naw! They are, and will ever remain, European colonizers/interlopers in Africa until they freely marry Africans and adapt African culture (cuisine, music, language, etc..
ANALOGY: A German Shepherd in Mexico will never be a Chihuahua. If a cat has kittens in an oven, are they bisquits?
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Are white South Africans whose ancestors have been there for generations African?
posted
Judging from the hypotheses of the vast majority of competent anthropologists, Homo sapiens sapiens developed in the east of Africa in the environs between what's today Lesotho to Eritrea. Consider the equator, environment, and climate of those times (~200kya - 90kya). They were of necessity dark skinned (crayon brown being their median complexion) and possessed the varying facial soft parts and hair types still displayed there today (nothing homogeneous about their appearance then nor today). What skull and skeletal remains we have also support the view that were tropically adapted.
American definition of black is purely social. A pink skinned, blue eyed, blond can be black in the United States. Such a person need but have an inner African ancestor no further back than three generations (great-grandparents, i.e., one out of eight forebearers) or have been raised in a community of Middle Passage descended people. Is it fair to impose such a socially delimited definition on physical types elsewhere over the globe?
Of course, there are blacks currently living along the littoral. The question is, to what extent are they descendants of the littoral's indigenees? Most likely very minimally, if at all. Historical notices ranging from as far back and away as ~3rd millenium BCE Minoa to ~16th century CE Arabic accounts (with Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and others in between) indicate that the original littoral dark indigenees lost their colour through miscegenation with Aegean, Ionian, Tyrrhenian, and Iberian Europeans (as well as enslaved Capsian and Black Sea Europeans) while those retaining colour migrated southward to strongholds in the Algerian chotts and further south into the Sahara where they are still to be found in and among the various modern populations.
The near whites of the littoral arose from European mommies and native daddies (for the most part). I don't know of whites from Asia proper (though some claim the Oxus river valley was a white homeland. The populations of the African extension (the Levant, Mesopotamia, and the Arabian peninsula) are hardly white.
Eurasia, by literal definition, must include all Asia and Europe, (which is geographically no more than the tail to the Asian kite) too vast an area to speak of an Eurasian people. Genetically, all people (outside of continental Africa) of NRYs M130, M174, & M89 and mtDNA MN are so-called "Eurasian" by geneticists' accounts (which is all the globe excluding continental Africa).
I hate the term black Africa. It has no corollary. It's just something to make Africans feel like they are a minority or special interest problem right at home on their own continent. And it makes them focus in on colour in a way no other people on the face of the earth are forced to do.
I thought the icon might've been some painting of some famous European diaspora African when I first chose it but I really don't know. It just has some characteristics of mine that those who know me would immediately pick up on.
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena:
Weren't the original inhabitants of all of Africa including the littoral all Black, per what I understand on this forum, so they would be considered Black in America if Americans were not so hypocritical, right? Are white South Africans whose ancestors have been there for generations African? I guess it depends on point of view. Are there Blacks still living in the littoral. Are all the ancestors of the non-Blacks in the littoral native to the region or are some of them Eurasians who came in and mixed with the indigenous (Black) Africans?
. . . .
But what about the peoples of the littoral?
By the way, alTrakuri, is your icon a painting of Juan de Pareja?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the information, al Takruri. It was informative and intelligent as usual.
I think Europeans created this whole "Black Africa" concept so they could appropriate the civilizations of North Africa, especially Egypt. It is amazing to me how hypocritical and opportunistic they are. So some Black people are not really Black, they are dark-skinned Caucasians, etc. They hate Arabs and are bombing Iraq but speak of Mesopotamia as the origin of civilization because the peoples of Mesopotamia were "white." It goes on and on and on.
I don't think the icon is Juan de Pareja. I remembered that the painting of him portrays him in a very serious pose, unlike the icon.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Nice analogy!
Printer-friendly view of this topic